Mortality in bullous pemphigoid: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of standardized mortality ratios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are inconsistent data on mortality rates in patients with bullous pemphigoid (BP). Trends in mortality in BP throughout the years are yet to be established. The aim of the present study was to study the mortality in BP patients relative to the general population and to estimate trends in standardized mortality over the past 30 years. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in Medline, Embase and Scopus (1823-2017). Reference lists of included studies were also searched for eligible studies. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models to estimate pooled standardized mortality ratios (SMR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Meta-regression models were used to investigate the secular trends in SMR. Ten studies were included covering the period 1960-2015 (1736 patients, 746 deaths). Pooled all-cause SMR was 3.6 (95% CI, 2.6-5.0). There was no trend in all-cause SMR across the last three decades (regression coefficient 0.02 [change in logSMR/year]; 95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P = 0.545). In conclusion, there is a 3.6-fold increased mortality among patients with BP as compared with the age-matched general population. The excess mortality in BP has not changed significantly over the past 30 years.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".